Baltazar v. Ombudsman

Facts:

Paciencia Regala owns a seven (7)-hectare fishpond located at Sasmuan, Pampanga. Her Attorney-in-Fact Faustino R. Mercado leased the fishpond for  to Eduardo Lapid for a three (3)-year period. Lessee Eduardo Lapid in turn sub-leased the fishpond to Rafael Lopez during the last seven (7) months of the original lease. Respondent Ernesto Salenga was hired by Eduardo Lapid as fishpond watchman (bante-encargado). In the sub-lease, Rafael Lopez rehired respondent Salenga.

Respondent Salenga, through a certain Francis Lagman, sent a demand letter to Rafael Lopez and Lourdes Lapid for unpaid salaries and non-payment of the 10% share in the harvest.

Sub-lessee Rafael Lopez wrote a letter to respondent Salenga informing the latter that for the last two (2) months of the sub-lease, he had given the rights over the fishpond to Mario Palad and Ambit Perez. This prompted respondent Salenga to file a Complaint before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board Region III, San Fernando, Pampanga for Maintenance of Peaceful Possession, Collection of Sum of Money and Supervision of Harvest.

Respondent Salenga amended his complaint to include a prayer for the issuance of a TRO and PI. However, before the prayer for the issuance of a TRO could be acted upon, respondent Salenga filed a Motion to Maintain Status Quo and to Issue Restraining Order. In the hearing, however, only respondent Salenga with his counsel appeared despite notice to the other parties. Consequently, the ex-parte presentation of respondent Salenga's evidence in support of the prayer for the issuance of a restraining order was allowed, since the motion was unopposed, and respondent Ilao, Jr. issued a TRO.

Thereafter, respondent Salenga asked for supervision of the harvest, which the board sheriff did. Accordingly, defendants Lopez and Lapid received their respective shares while respondent Salenga was given his share under protest. In the subsequent hearing for the issuance of a preliminary injunction, again, only respondent Salenga appeared and presented his evidence for the issuance of the writ.

Pending resolution of the case, Faustino Mercado, as Attorney-in-Fact of the fishpond owner Paciencia Regala, filed a motion to intervene which was granted by respondent Ilao, Jr. After the trial, respondent Ilao, Jr. rendered a Decision  dismissing the Complaint for lack of merit; but losing plaintiff, respondent Salenga, appealed the decision before the DARAB Appellate Board.

Antonio Baltazar, an alleged nephew of Faustino Mercado, through a Complaint-Affidavit against private respondents before the Office of the Ombudsman. Ilao, Jr. filed a motion to dismiss but was denied.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner has a legal standing in this case

Held:

Locus standi is defined as "a right of appearance in a court of justice x x x on a given question." In private suits, standing is governed by the "real-parties-in interest" rule found in Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that "every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest." Accordingly, the "real-party-in interest" is "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit." Succinctly put, the plaintiffs' standing is based on their own right to the relief sought.

The records show that petitioner is a non-lawyer appearing for himself and conducting litigation in person. Petitioner instituted the instant case before the Ombudsman in his own name. In so far as the Complaint-Affidavit filed before the Office of the Ombudsman is concerned, there is no question on his authority and legal standing. Indeed, the Office of the Ombudsman is mandated to "investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient (emphasis supplied)." The Ombudsman can act on anonymous complaints and motu proprio inquire into alleged improper official acts or omissions from whatever source, e.g., a newspaper. Thus, any complainant may be entertained by the Ombudsman for the latter to initiate an inquiry and investigation for alleged irregularities.

However, filing the petition in person before SC is another matter. The Rules allow a non-lawyer to conduct litigation in person and appear for oneself only when he is a party to a legal controversy. Section 34 of Rule 138 pertinently provides, thus:

SEC. 34. By whom litigation conducted. - In the court of a justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar (emphases supplied).

Petitioner has no legal standing. It is also clear that petitioner is not a real party in interest.